Another School Shooting - This Time in Texas
Another day, another school shooting. This time it occurred in Santa Fe, Texas with up to 10 people dead.
What's obvious is that these students could not defend themselves. Until all high school students are allowed to bring their own guns to school for self-defense purposes, none of them will ever be safe. We need to change gun free zones to self-defense zones.Not sure I'm up to arming children that think the choking game, or huffing freon, is a great thing to do.
I like to believe you are being snarky. It is how I often am when discussing such things. Well, what is perfectly clear is that gun free zones work at least as well as drug free zones.
Yes indeed, issue each child a miniature assault weapon--they probably make them right there in Texas as they do in Florida-- when they begin preschool and they'll be well acquainted with its use by the time they get to high school. They may come in handy with those pesky science teachers attempting to enlighten the students on the theory of evolution.
So, instead of the teachers having carry permits, your opinion is that fellow students should also be allowed to legally bring weapons to school too?
My first thought, one student decides to shoot others, then all students pulling their weapon, bullets go zooming around the classroom, the active shooter is killed, but how many of the 'defenders' may accidentally shoot each other in the process?
I can see the teachers being screened and provided the right to carry, but not students.If we educate each student by having classes about the proper use of the weapons, then there will be relatively few problems and they will also be extremely safe. Education is the key. If some of their day is spent learning about the proper use of weapons and the other part is spent studying the Bible, as it should, then they will have the appropriate education to protect themselves and understand the value of human life.
You mean like educating them as to safe driving speeds, use of illegal drugs and safe sex? We've done a great job teaching them be "extremely safe" there, haven't we?
Well, a car can be a very effective weapon for killing people, as we have seen. Since teenagers already have access to cars, it makes sense to allow them to carry guns to protect themselves. It will make schools safer.
- RTalloniposted 6 years ago
0Welp...this is likely to get interesting. Here's something for the mix...
Perhaps we should undo the entire educational system. A blonde girl (young woman, actually) in tears was interviewed this morning. She said that she didn't want to go back and that no one should go back. I couldn't help but think how right she was. Could it be that age-segregation has made students more vulnerable than any one wants to admit?
What if it all changed. All the teachers complaining about the issues with their jobs could find different jobs. Students could homeschool, get jobs/internships, be mentored by parents, grandparents, bosses, and have many more opportunities in class-type settings with those who are at their same educational levels rather than at their same age levels. Where ideas like these are reality we find students doing quite well, learning to be grownups rather than digging in with attitudes about not wanting to grow up.
Changing the education system to what it ought to be would change society, which would change the attitudes we face in medical systems, business world, and general workforce, and change them for the better. Teaching students that they have a right to have safety provided to them is to lie to them because this world has never and will never be able to provide safety no matter what anyone says. Teaching them wisdom and knowledge and skills, however, is to provide them with the ability to confidently try to keep themselves safe and help others to be safe.Kids being taught by their parents? God forbid. We've seen the results of that already.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
This is NOT a time to arm high school students , Where is you people's common sense ? There are enough retired cops , military vets , ordinary citizens , armed teachers and maintenance men The middle school near me in a small new england town must have three dozen retired or semi-retired adults within a quarter of a mile of the school . Arming students would begin a cultural war similar to WWIII , For God's sake , they don't even have developed minds yet !
And you all know already that one more law no matter how generally inclusive will not EVER end a certain illegal act . Did it or does it work for drugs , burglaries , rape or assaults ? This will continue into eternity until adults get very serious about their own lack of child raising skills . Fact !Why not arm them? Don't they have a right to protect themselves? And what's the difference between an 18-year-old with a gun and a 17-year-old with a gun? My God, you sound just like a liberal.
Perhaps if all students wore bullet-proof vests to school, that would reduce deaths. So I'm supportive of protection as well.That doesn't surprise me ; You want to see kids with guns ? Just take a trip to inner city Chicago , Phoenix , Detroit , L.A. Someone like yourself willing to arm school kids ? Gee , I hope you never have any ...... I won't say what I really think of your remarks , I'll get banned .
Suffice to say , you know not of what you speak !More liberal speak from you. Obviously, you're not a true supporter of the 2nd amendment. It's pretty simple: a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. If a kid can drive a car at 16, surely a kid can operate a gun safely. And there are many more law-abiding, good kids then there are bad ones. Teach them to safely use a gun and they would have prevented most of these tragedies. In fact, most of these tragedies would have never occurred because the shooters would have been too afraid to step inside the school.
'Safe sex' is a topic that has been 'taught' for years, but shows like'16 and Pregnant' and 'Teen Mom' still exist. If proper condom application cannot be followed, how can we expect proper gun safety to be followed?
Additionally, if being taught the bible in addition to sex education classes, logically there would be no pregnant women until after marriage, right?
As Forest Gump would say, "and that's all I have to say about that."My, my, another one? This is beginning to become quite routine. Did not seem that we were dealing with this sort of routine carnage prior to a generation ago. Where is all of this coming from now? I know, it is the liberals, isn't it
It is fitting that it occurs in Texas, a gun fanatic state. I am watching for their official responses and explanations.
As I said in other threads, arming teachers is a dumb idea and arming students is even dumber.
The parents of this minor should have to some bear some criminal responsibility for the crime of negligence regarding his or her charge. That is just another risk that gun owners need to be aware of and take full responsibility for, the things that your kids do with your weapons that are supposed to be under your control at all times.Geesh Cred. I hope you took your sock off first.
Considering the gist of what we know so far, the kid had no real history of "red flags" to portend this event. The guns used were not semi-automatics or dreaded assault weapons, And I haven't heard anything yet about how he got his father's guns. For all we know they may have been securely locked up - and the kid defeated the locks or connived his dad out of the keys or combinations.
Yet your first thoughts are that "it's fitting that it occurs" in a gun-crazy state, (what a crappy and telling thought that is), and the parents should be held criminally responsible. What do you know that the rest of us don't?
That is quite a gamble. You look smugly righteous if it turns out the dad got those weapons in some legal way that could only happen in a gun-crazy state like Texas, and that the dad just left the guns laying loose around the house. Otherwise...
GAGA, it was not nice, as I don't like Texas, so your point here is well taken.
No, we don't know, but the risk of being a gun owner, should make you responsible as an accessory if a minor gets access to guns that are under your control. I have noted that conservatives always look to the aberration in the individual as an excuse to get a neighbor to call authorities on any odd duck, civil liberties be damned. But, now I am asking a bit much to say that parents should have that sort of intimate knowledge of a minor child in their care. Either that or you had better find an even more foolproof way of securing your weapons. I won't let the Right have it both ways.
Tell me you wouldn't find it odd for a kid to going around school in a black trench coat all the time in Houston's hot muggy climate? While there was no criminal records, discerning parents would find aspects of of this boy's behavior as suspicious. But, no, I going to hear the same kinds of excuses for parents being asleep at the switch that I heard from the parents of Klebold and Harris.
Parents lose by default, either get control of the guns or your kids....Are you an accessory if someone steals your car and crashes it into someone else? What if it's their kid that steals it - are the parents criminally negligent?
"Are you an accessory if someone steals your car and crashes it into someone else? What if it's their kid that steals it - are the parents criminally negligent?"
----------------
I not responsible for the behavior of an adult or a child that is not my own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/us/2 … suits.html
On the other hand even if the parents get off without criminal charge in this latest carnage, under civil court lawsuits they will be forced to pay damages as they will richly deserve. And like the financial penalty paid by the Klebold and Harris families this family will "pay" as well. So, is there anyway that the parents or legal guardian of a minor child who is found committing crimes on a heinous scale can really expect to get off of the hook?
So, as I say to parents, you own a gun in the house and your minor child uses it to kill or maim, there is no escaping being held culpable in some way. Be sure, it will prove quite costly. You keep your gun, but there is going to be a price paid if it is misused by you or someone is your household that you are the legal guardian for regardless of whether and it is your fault or not you remain responsible.
Credence I missed the first part of your crass and cruel response , "....fitting that it happened in texas ....an gun fanatic state .........." That's simply the way liberals look at all crimes isn't it ? As long as it's NIMBY or my kids , or my gun , my car , my school , in my neighborhood ..............AND as long as it's not my problem . How telling of you to respond that way .
Electronic triggers ? Do you mean like electronic responses in forum posts? Detached like the above of any conscientious cost or consequence ? I guess this is exactly how one can live in the middle of the city of crime , a society crumbling around them and remain sane ? Electronic triggers ? There is not an object in the world that cannot be programmed or reprogrammed to the perpetrators desires . A gun a gun safe , a truck , pressure cooker or a rag and a jar of gasoline .............
A cure ? Never , as long as the responses to crimes like the shooting in Texas is received like the irresponsible post above . It's pretty obvious that "............I don't like Texas ......"in your response is just how you'd cure these shootings .OK, Ahorseback, you can spare me "the drama". I apologized for diminishing the magnitude of this crime. Unfortunately, I have the same attitude in regards to Texas that you have for, say, California. That arrogant, in your face, rightwinger persona that characterizes the state is just as grating as a piece of chalk on a blackboard.
I am talking about a thumbprint on the wood or fiberglass part of the stock unique to the owner of the gun that can be verified by electronic means similar to a password on a computer to allow or not allow the safety on a weapon to be disengaged. Yes, anything can be disengaged, but that takes time and resources. People involved in hastily set up massacres and related carnage usually are pressed for time. Any roadblock is better than nothing.
One helpful solution is making negligent parents and legal guardians pay a price for their poor judgement.Do you two not realize that kids in Texas are sent out on the ranch for chores and carry guns in their pickup trucks in case they encounter a den of snakes or a rabid coyote? Seriously, I'm not making that up. City people have no idea of rural life. Maybe Texas should outlaw giving kids chores.
Not only do "city people " have no idea about rural kids and law abiding gun owners , but apparently they have no idea about how to enforce the existing gun laws already in place . Chicago comes to mind , Baltimore , Detroit , Camden NJ. ...........where gunabusers and recidivist criminals are apparently rewarded !
Obviously you are making a racial distinction. Well I don't, any minor doing mayhem with a firearm will subject their parents or legal guardian to a ship load of hassle. That applies to the gangbanger in Detroit as well as the Okie from Muscogee.
Where was the "racial" distinction, I missed it? (surely not just the cities named? I mean, gee, what would that say in itself?)
GAThe cities named, surely it is obvious what Ahorseback alludes to.
Yes, it is obvious. Cities with extreme levels of violent crime.
It seems obvious that we disagree on what is obvious Cred. Given my perception of ahorseback's trend in commenting in this forum; shallow liberals, shallow Democrats, shallow Democrat party, clueless Democrats, etc., -- that would have been my first guess at what he meant. After all, aren't the cities he mentioned managed and led by primarily Democrat administrations?
But since it turns out those same Democrat administrations are also primarily black-led or black managed administrations it is your presumption that race is what he meant - it's the "Black's" fault.
I don't think it is ahorseback that seems to be making a "racial distinction."
[EDIT] Oops ... I read ahorseback's reply after responding to you. Turns out we were both wrong. He was talking about violence.
*(but I'm sure in the back of his mind he did have a "shallow democrat" thought lurking around) :-)
GAIndeed, GA. You might be missing my point. There are plenty of cities with similar problems that are run by Republican municipal administrators. It is a false equivalence to say that because Democrats are in charge of the munipalities that that is itself the cause of inner city related problems. Like, I said to ahorseback, racial distinctions do not imply racism. The problems of the inner city are beyond discussions of partisanship, and I have no reason to believe that the GOP would improve things or not use false equivalency to just blame the Democrats as a form of political expediency
It just that the Right is so critical of gun related carnage in the inner city, but take an non-chalant attitude when it is one of "theirs" involved in gun related tragedies.I guess I did miss your point Cred. When I read your response to ahorseback, I missed the inner-city violence code word thing. I just thought he was talking about their Democrat leadership.
Oh well, I have always been a little slow to grasp this code word and dog whistle thing. I am too lazy to make the extra effort to be devious, so I often miss it in others.
GAI WAS talking about inner city crime and democratic leadership in those cities -AND many more . Yet Credence always takes it to racism because that is a typical liberal response when certain patterns pointed out cannot easily be explained except by looking at their political leadership , But of course it's my fault that yes , cities that are and have been liberally managed for up to a century are bastions of inner city violent crime , gang activities , drug trafficking , NO MATTER what the race parameters are there. Yet if Credence wants to inject the accusation of racism into the circle let her , she has the right to chose to be as racially biased as the next person .
No , I always leave the racial undertones to you Credence , my point is to have you look at the intricacies of inner city violence , the culture of violence , a fad of violence if you will ,where the majority of gun crime originates , that goes for drug crimes , violent crime etc.........If you wish to inject race into the mix all I can say is " there you go again " , It isn't racism to inject the blame for the higher statistics of crime where it belongs , in the per square mile population , obviously the more people the more crime .
If pointing out that one regional culture , or city group of a particular political leadership has higher statistics of recidivism , youth crime , violent crime , gangs and such then why is it that you defend that obvious bump in reality by screaming "racism" ? By doing so all you are doing is proving you have a bias keeping you from really delving into the intricacies of youth violence and youth crime problems.
You and many here are simply ignoring and over simplifying that the cause of violent crime in youth culture runs deeper than a one issue solution , Any low IQ person with any grey matter at all knows that one issue solutions are generally a media ploy ie. the easy answer , turn your head the other way , turn the page , move on , not my child , not in my house , NIMBY.Gosh, Ahorseback, you don't have to get your drawers in a bunch. It is nice to start the day with you after coffee, and look forward to sharpening my claws.
Making a racial distinction is not "racism", no more than acknowledging that you are white and I black.
I got my Berlitz on hand and the code words and dog whistles frequently used by the Right I have the translations for, thanks. The places you mentioned in your post were a synonym for inner city locations and they are not exactly populated by Lithuanians. These are not subtle distinctions, that such as the difference between a Mack Truck and a Yugo.
I never made any inferences about violent crime and youth as pertaining to urban life, so what am I inferring?
Thats fine, but parents and legal guardians are still responsible if the weapons are misused by their children, only adults can legally be the owner of a firearm in my opinion. Kids can deal with all the snakes and coyotes they want, but if they screw up, daddy and mommy pays.
This entitlement infested culture doesn't hold young adults responsible for life in general , Why do that only with firearms ? What about phone distracted youth drivers , What about mass child obesity , spring break alcohol drug abuses ,well hidden campus sexual assaults , drug addled gangs and after hours street violence ?
KInd of picking on the coyote hunters ?Let me make this clear, if you are the legal guardian of someone under the age of 18, you should bear some contributory responsibility for his or her behavior, since society does not hold minors to the level responsibility as adults. The portion that society does not hold against the minor is properly allotted to the parent or legalguardian. That applies to everything. You are not off the hook until the kid turns 18.
Does not matter whether whether you are hunting coyotes or snipes.
Oh geez Cred, you can buy straws by the hundreds at the Dollar store. With comments like this one, you need to buy in bulk. That is a far-side Progressive thought - even for you.
GAYou're showing your red.
We got gun homicide problems with these kids and I am still hearing from conservatives all this "boys will be boys" stuff as an excuse. But, suggest anything about controlling the proliferation of firearms we get into all of this 2nd amendment issues, coronaries everywhere, akin to touching God's eyeball. Why should I take into consideration the one sided solution of the Rightwinger in regard to this issue? So what is wrong with my stance?
As I say, NEVER let the rightwinger have their cake and eat it too.I haven't been "hearing" Conservatives say "boys will be boys" Cred. And certainly not in the context of an excuse. I have been hearing them, (and myself), saying all boys aren't like the "city boys" you paint as minors.
Since you ask what is wrong with your stance, I see it as this:
We are discussing one incident - with details significantly different from your "norm," yet your first response is to decry gun proliferation, parental negligence, "parents lose by default," etc. Even after later admitting that you don't know the details of this "minor's home life, parental supervision, or how he got the guns - you still follow your first gut-reaction.
As several of us "Conservatives", (especially MizBejabbers), have pointed out; in many non-city households, there is nothing unusual about real minors, (8 to 14 years-old), being taught gun safety, using guns, and even in the case of young adult "minors" having their own guns. That was my circumstance. And that you ignore such realities is what I see wrong with your stance.
Gun proliferation? Again, in this incidence, I don't think a home or personal defense revolver, and a shotgun, (probably for hunting), really fit the inference of your negative gun proliferation cry. And I don't recall seeing any 2nd Amendment defenses in this thread either.
Even if it does turn out this "minor" did present what a rational person would consider obvious Red Flags, and even if it does turn out the guns were negligently unsecured in the household, it would only effect the determination of this particular incident - not the logic of the reality I have described -- that for many of our "non-city" young adult minors -- a gun is only a tool. Until you can incorporate that reality into your "stance," I think your view will forever be skewed.
GAGA, ok, I don't have a problem with this as long as everybody knows where the responsibility ultimately lies if there an abuse of the weapons by minors. If a kid shoots out the windows of my house, who do you think I am going to hold responsible for damages and financial restitution?
No, having those weapons in this individual circumstance may not be a problem in itself. I reserve the term "proliferation" as reference to a national problem. This Texas thing is more than just an unfortunate accident, conservatives would just like to see "blown off" until the next "tragic accident" occurs. Because gun fanaticism is part and parcel of living in Texas, no one dare mention anything about the 2nd Amendment. I say if you want the gun, you are responsible for its proper storage and use and will bear some of the blame and criminal liability if you fail to control Improper access and use of the weapons by yourself or those non-adults you are responsible for in the case of property damage, injury or death. That is the only acceptable compromise I make with the gun people. Since it is so easy to get a gun here, the penalties for abuse need to be harsh.
It does not matter how your 17 year old got the gun you own and are responsible for , you are still liable. So, that might be an incentive to gun owners to exercise the proper amount of caution in the face of that risk and do nothing but make it more difficult for teenager just to take the weapon from the kitchen table. You say the parents thought they had a good kid, why would they believe that they needed to go through extraordinary measures to keep the gun away from the teen? City boys or country boys, the same rules regarding adult responsibility and liability applies to all, without distinction. If these rules that I laid out are properly applied, I bet that we will have fewer numbers of these "particular incidents". Daddy needs to understand that if junior misuses the "tool" that there will be "trouble in River City".
https://www.yahoo.com/news/d-l-hughley- … 30847.html
Interesting article, every one needs to know that WE will be watching....."I reserve the term "proliferation" <of guns> as reference to a national problem."
pro·lif·er·a·tion
[prəˌlifəˈrāSH(ə)n]
NOUN
rapid increase in numbers.
The percentage of households in the US with a gun is, and has been for some time, falling. Are you sure you don't mean "the decrease in gun ownership" is a problem?
"According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of- … udy-shows/
"If these rules that I laid out are properly applied, I bet that we will have fewer numbers of these "particular incidents"."
The only rule I can find in your post is to "exercise the proper amount of caution". As the "proper" caution is to prevent any access to guns owned, with 100% surety, and that means no guns shall be allowed to anyone, I assume you mean the disarming of the American public. But you've said before that isn't the case - which is it?I should have said the ease of availability, ok, I will concede that point but not the other. I DID not say disarm, your gun fanatic reflex working overtime? There is not 100 percent certainty of anything. You get your gun, but keep your mistakes to a minimum, is that asking so much? I did not say, "no gun". I did say no gun without responsible ownership. Do you have a problem with that? I have a car, I cannot with absolute certainty say that I won't have an accident, if I do, I am still liable just as I am if my 17 year old kid takes it joy riding without authorization.
I'd question that "ease of availability", too. When I grew up nobody had a gun safe, nobody had trigger locks and nobody without kids under, say, 10 years separated ammunition from gun storage. We didn't have all the rules about buying guns, either. It's gotten much more difficult to lay your hands on a gun. I owned a rifle by the time was about 14, and my cousin received a .22 for his first birthday! Couldn't pick it up, (couldn't stand up either) but he was hell on targets from a prone position!
:
That was my question. Now you say "keep your mistakes to a minimum", but still without specifying what that "minimum" might be. Judging from your other comments here it means "If a kid gets your gun you are responsible regardless of what care you might have taken". Involuntary manslaughter at a minimum. And that in turn means you'd best not have a gun at all, for nothing in this life is a sure thing when it comes to people.That is interesting, in itself. We come from different realities, growing up, no one would have ever considered giving a gun as a present. It has got to be no wonder why we seem naturally so far apart on so many things.
Yes, I do mean that if a kid gets your gun and misuses it, regardless, you are going to have liability issues if not criminal accessory concerns, as you should. Better make sure both your kids and weapons are properly locked down. You can have your gun, just be aware of the risk you assume.
As a former military officer, I was responsible for men under my authority, even if I were not directly at fault for an infraction from anyone of them, and these men were adults. How much more does that apply to minor children under your charge?"Yes, I do mean that if a kid gets your gun and misuses it, regardless, you are going to have liability issues if not criminal accessory concerns, as you should."
If you can't price a gun out of reach, make it so dangerous (legally) to own that no one will. But you don't want to disarm the country.
I'm sorry, Cred, but your words don't match - they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and are not compatible."Yes, I do mean that if a kid gets your gun and misuses it, regardless, you are going to have liability issues if not criminal accessory concerns, as you should."
If you can't price a gun out of reach, make it so dangerous (legally) to own that no one will. But you don't want to disarm the country.
I'm sorry, Cred, but your words don't match - they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and are not compatible.
Wilderness, is what I am discussing so draconian? You do know that the adults guardians involved in the Klebold and Harris school massacres in Colorado had to pay over 3 million in lawsuits to families of those kids that were killed. So, what is the penalty for the parents having their 17 year old plan an insurrection right under their noses? So, if there are no criminal charges, the hapless parents of the wayward boy will be bankrupted through lawsuits, that will stick, as the penalty. So, you had better be careful....
All the things I speak of is nothing new. It is already dangerous to own one. Because, if there is a screwup, you're going to pay.
Wilderness ,This is exactly how I grew up , multiple guns in the home , I was the middle child of ten kids , each of my older brothers and my Father had guns , rifles and shotguns , we took our shotguns to school when we came of hunting age to go partridge hunting in the afternoons , some kids would keep them in their vehicles and one or two of us would leave them in the school office for the day and would pick them up after school .
This was in 1968, 69 ,70 71 ,72 , no one had ever heard of a gun safe , no one had ever heard of a school shooting , if their were fights after school and there were many , including "gangs " from other towns there was never a knife , a gun or a club pulled out .
There also was no culture of violence , no youth gangs , obviously no cell phones , lap tops , I -pads , no U -Tube , no Face- Book and no rap music and in certain groups there were a few drugs , LSD , mescaline , THC , hash , some amphetamines, pot and a lot of beer drinking when we could .
I never got into the drug scene but many did , in our middle and high school
which was overcrowded there were about 700 students .
I was fourteen when I'd saved and bought my first shotgun , a .410 bolt action J.C Higgins shotgun for $59.99 and later a .22 semi automatic rifle , My father met me after school at the local hardware store and gave verbal permission to the store clerk for me to buy them . All we ever were told was to "Use your heads and don't do anything stupid " by our parents . Yet we had to attend an eight hour NRA sponsored firearms safety course in the classroom and a four hour field safety course at the local gun range . directed by a well known local sportsman . All of which was paid for and SPONSORED by the NRA .
There IS SOMETHING WRONG in our youth culture today and what is wrong is that they are partially raised by an increasingly violent music and video culture , a violence inspired hollywood profiteering system of mind altering behavior not at all unlike systematic brainwashing . This combined with an increasing lack of morals , a lessening of familial values ,
overpowering social media scene running 24 hour cycles in their heads AND an increasing illicit drug experimental lifestyle and we wonder why these youth are detaching from family and cultural values and aligning
themselves with the" hollywood" video influences ?
WE are facing a bleak time in America, in our younger cultures and one not very likely to change anytime soon , it will take a personal , social , media and cultural return to the values of the past to come out of this .
You are forgiven bud, I know the Dark Side pulls at you :-)
Generally speaking, I agree with you that if circumstances warrant it. parents should be responsible, (in some way), for the consequences of their negligence - in all areas, not just gun-related ones.
Let's look at the apparent circumstances of this particular incidence to see if it fits your general declaration of parental culpability.
The "kid" hardly qualifies to be called "kid," he was 17. In most states, for certain crimes, he would be judged as an adult. Although all guns, can be called dangerous, I don't think these these two in particular - a revolver and a shotgun, seem to be of the category that would immediately elicit the concerns for caution that an "assault rifle" or Glock 9 would.
If the circumstances are that there are no young children, or obviously deranged folks in the house, and, (being in a gun crazy state), the family is a gun-friendly and experienced one, I can see the reasonableness of storing these guns in a drawer or closet shelf, (the revolver), and the shotgun in a closet corner, (or something similar). If the first couple conditions prove true, then I don't see any negligence on the father's part.
Hells bells, what if, as a "young adult man," in this gun crazy state of Texas, his father had taught him the proper safe handling and usage of these two weapons - and how to access them quickly in case of a family defensive need? Do you see that as a negligent fault of the father?
As for the "kid's" behavior ... Most reports I have seen indicate that up until the last few months, this kid was a typically "good" all-American boy. But the trench coat? Yes, that could be seen as weird, but ask any parent that has raised kids through their teens and pre-teens about innocent phases and fads. Should a teen that wears cowboy boots and black cowboy hats in hot flip-flop and shorts weather also raise parental concern?
Do you think parents have the responsibility - with no other indicting behaviors, to monitor their young adult's social media accounts - like they would a 9-13 year-old's?
My point is that I think your generalizations fail in this incidence, and by such failure prove the error of making them, and the error of your instinctive reaction.
But there is hope, admitting you have a problem is the first step, now to take the next one ... Most good-American Conservatives are not Right-wingers. Come on, you can say it. :-)
GAYou are forgiven bud, I know the Dark Side pulls at you :-)
Generally speaking, I agree with you that if circumstances warrant it. parents should be responsible, (in some way), for the consequences of their negligence - in all areas, not just gun-related ones.
----
(Agreed, thanks)
-----
Let's look at the apparent circumstances of this particular incidence to see if it fits your general declaration of parental culpability.
The "kid" hardly qualifies to be called "kid," he was 17. In most states, for certain crimes, he would be judged as an adult. Although all guns, can be called dangerous, I don't think these these two in particular - a revolver and a shotgun, seem to be of the category that would immediately elicit the concerns for caution that an "assault rifle" or Glock 9 would.
---
( interesting debate, but I consider anyone under the age of 18 a minor. The Supreme Court said as much where it considered the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment when applied to normally capital crimes when committed by a minor.)
(I think any firearm should elicit concern for caution as they all have one single purpose)
------
If the circumstances are that there are no young children, or obviously deranged folks in the house, and, (being in a gun crazy state), the family is a gun-friendly and experienced one, I can see the reasonableness of storing these guns in a drawer or closet shelf, (the revolver), and the shotgun in a closet corner, (or something similar). If the first couple conditions prove true, then I don't see any negligence on the father's part.
--------
( Don't get me wrong GA, it may well be that the parents were not directly at fault for the massacre in Texas. But the fact that there is any lethal weapon in the house and there are minor children, their charges, in the house, that makes them responsible, nonetheless. It might be just me, GA, but we all know what adolescence means. A 17 year old boy takes on the form and shape of a grown man, but with all the raging hormones he is lacking in emotional maturity and good judgement. That takes time and experience, and we have all been there once. I don't think that it all can be taught. That is why they cannot legally use alcoholic beverages, and insuring them to drive the car is so expensive. I would be concerned about having weapon in the house under such conditions, but again that just me)
---------
As for the "kid's" behavior ... Most reports I have seen indicate that up until the last few months, this kid was a typically "good" all-American boy. But the trench coat? Yes, that could be seen as weird, but ask any parent that has raised kids through their teens and pre-teens about innocent phases and fads. Should a teen that wears cowboy boots and black cowboy hats in hot flip-flop and shorts weather also raise parental concern?
--------------
( who says the kid was a good all American boy? Just like parents missed red flags about Klebold and Harris, I think that this kid had his own demons that he could not handle. Attentive and discerning parents should have been paying attention. The gun in the dresser drawer would be my first thought if there were any thought or observation of aberrant behavior from the boy. Pay careful attention to discern the different between following a fad and signals of a troubled personality)
------------
Do you think parents have the responsibility - with no other indicting behaviors, to monitor their young adult's social media accounts - like they would a 9-13 year-old's?
------------
(interesting question. I give older children greater autonomy and more responsibility than younger children. But, I am not really free to abdicate in regards to responsibility and supervision, not really, until they reach the age of majority.)
----------
But there is hope, admitting you have a problem is the first step, now to take the next one ... Most good-American Conservatives are not Right-wingers. Come on, you can say it. :-)
------------
(Sorry, for this I will have to keep up the suspense for just a bit longer)
As always, nice chatting with you.....
GAHey, we made progress Cred. That's always a positive thing.
As a sidebar, I have another good read for you. I seemed to have picked up duplicate hardcover copies of Stanley Kutler's 'The Wars of Watergate' An excellent read that is well-documented and sourced.
GAWatergate? Sounds like fun. let me do a synopsis and get with you thru e-mail....
Sure thing Cred. The clue is the plural "wars." It covers other aspects besides just Nixon. Kutler is well-credentialed for the job.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
As common people , one might think that the repeating of these killings over and over and over MIGHT result in a people who stop the partisan attitudes and seriously look to a real solution other than another law that never amounts to a thing . What does it take to look to the innocents ? Not putting them on the moral pedestals like parkland but considering their basic safety , and then DOING something !
Okay, let's do something. What should we do?
-Prioritize system-wide armed / trained protections
-Panels of student disciplinarians each school
-Armed resource officer every school
-Mandatory Communication between law enforcement / education system
-One metal detecting entrance per school
-No backpacks , large bags
-Repeal Obama crime forgiveness
-No cell phones in schools
-Arm teachers / voluntary
-Upgrade shooting situation / fire alarms
-Cameras installed int. exterior
-Mandatory juvenile violent crime recording /reporting
no more protections for juvi's
- Mandate Social media involvement
- Fire teachers , admin opposing armed guards
- Higher ed.Campus CCTVI'm glad my kids are out of school.
Firing teachers for having a different opinion? Authoritarian and unconstitutional.Banning cell phones is a non-starter. Communication is more than a just matter of convenience, but one of safety.
How do you control social media involvement?-Banning phones in classes ? We never had them and survived and tested higher too . Social media could notify of obvious criminal or threatening behaviors .
Teachers and admin opposing change will obstruct necessary improvements , obviously the same people causing much discourse .
Here is a crazy idea, perhaps those more familiar with firearms can speak to its viability?
Why not design firearms with an electronic thumb print identification check where the safety feature on any weapon cannot be activated without the "chip" acknowledging the thumb print as that of the owner or some other person who would be authorized to use the weapon? I know the technology exists, but would it make your standard pistol excessively expensive?
Without interfering with gun ownership, it could eliminate firearm use by those not authorized and could save lives in advance?Mandatory locking gun safes would do the same thing .
Yes, as long as members of the family don't have access to the combination. Unfortunately, a hunting family may share the safe or the combination. So this wouldn't stop all guns from being used only by the owner.
I don't think so, Ahorseback, the whole idea of having a gun is to be able to get to it quickly at the time of emergency, having it all locked up prevents you from being quick on the draw. If the only one under my proposal, electronic safety, that can use the gun is me, then it can't be used against me. Doens't my approach take the best of dealing with the human element by making the weapon more difficult to operate by unauthorized hands?
So, what practical way is there to deal with humanity, short of serious violations of individual prerogatives and rights?
PrettyPanther asks what we should do. I know I'm gonna get brickbats for this nonpartisan answer. Start testing the kids for psychological problems. We test, test, and overtest these poor souls to death by the time they graduate. Add one more standardized test (make this for personality disorders) in the 4th grade and repeat upgraded versions of it as the kids get older, like in 6th, 8th, and 10th grades.
Will this accomplish anything? Maybe, maybe not, but it will at least give society a false sense of security that their kids are being monitored and get the heat off guns. It might weed out a few budding psychopaths, a narcissist or two, and even a mama's crybaby. And that's it if the test functions at minimal efficiency. A few parents who are truly concerned about their children could have them professionally evaluated if they don't meet the norm. Any parent not wanting the child tested could opt out if he or she agreed to home school the kid under state laws and regulations.
At best it really might catch a serious problem and get the child some help. One more test might not help, but it can't hurt as long as the results are not made public.Just watched a show on mental illness. One of the things the researchers did was check into a mental health hospital with the complaint that they heard voices - three innocent words repeated over and over, though I don't recall the words.
They then immediately reverted to acting "normal". When they were discharged, it was with the diagnosis of "schizophrenia in remission". Not "sane" - mentally ill with it in remission, maybe for a day, maybe forever.
The point is that we simply do not know enough about mental illness to make projections on future actions, and the medical profession agrees with that. We already label our kids as ADD, etc. far too often with the intent to drug them into docility - lets not make it worse.
Mental illness and guns are obviously intertwined, but the answer isn't an Orwellian knee jerk reaction to give Big Daddy in DC to authority to declare us insane and dangerous at their discretion. We've been down that road with Communism and Hoover!Mental illness and guns are obviously intertwined,
Not always, that Roof fellow that killed all these people in the church was following a playbook and knew exactly what he was doing.
-----------
but the answer isn't an Orwellian knee jerk reaction to give Big Daddy in DC to authority to declare us insane and dangerous at their discretion. We've been down that road with Communism and Hoover!
On that point we can agree.
------------------"Not always, that Roof fellow that killed all these people in the church was following a playbook and knew exactly what he was doing."
Disagree. Anyone that goes out to murder people innocent of any wrongdoing is mentally ill. It doesn't matter if they know what they are doing or not; they are mentally ill. Call it the "Wilderness definition" - no sane person does that kind of thing.I don't agree with the "wilderness Corollary" history can show that not all mass murderers are inherently mentally ill. Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Mengele, Joseph Stalin, to just name a couple. These people knew what they were doing and why. Pure evil does exist, and cannot be excused.
Interesting topic and lines or reasoning. I wonder what others think?I think you are right Cred, pure evil - in the form of bad people does exist. There are bad people among us. And I agree with you that they are not mentally ill - in a strict sense. I can see Wilderness' point that they must be mentally ill to deviate from societal norms in such a way, but I think yours is the correct perspective.
GAGuess I have to backtrack a little here, for I do agree with the both of you. But that nearly pure evil is rare, and these kids shooting up schools don't, I think, qualify. Could be wrong - I certainly haven't met any of them - but I don't think so.
99.9999999999 percent of law abiding gun owners wouldn't dream of hurting another human being , Yet anti-s will go through life defending those who WILL hurt another human being ? Yes , there is evil in this world , one of those evils is called the the Alt-left , anti-gun left .anti-second amendment left .
We should all defend the above gun owner against this evil and don't !Question: since you show so much compassion for the school shooters do you have the same attitude about inner city gang bangers? Be careful how you answer.
There sure is pure evil here . And most of this "pure evil " is within the hearts of --normal people-- who refuse to look at their own cultures , promotional violence in media , in music , in hollywood , spilling over from "virtual reality " videos , .......Landing squarely in the undeveloped minds of their children .
Want pure evil to end ? Stop blame-shamin an inanimate objects and look within your own hearts .You're always the one talking about "race cards" are your school shooters little darlings and inner city youth just evil thugs because one group happen to be overwhelmingly white, and the other not? That is the bottom line, isn't it? Why don't you just fess up to your REAL agenda....
Modern day Archie Bunkers, with the ignorant and lame excuses to boot. That is the righties for ya.So you DO accuse racism when you can't think a little deeper about the subjective solutions ? I'll say one thing , you make your bias easy to identify for everyone . So let me start here , You select evil , I say when evil is trained , entertained , displayed , educated and manifested into the individual , It can no longer be called evil .
You can stand in the street and scream racism all that you want but when you look for solution , look in the mirror. The answers aren't easy but they are there . Just a few , turn off the TV. , the video games , the punk shock jock music , the hollywood fad- killing , do something with your children besides hiring a video baby-sitter and going off to the mall .
No?...................then continue standing in the street and pointing your fingers and screaming at everything but yourselves . I think that you don't even really think I am a racist , you're just uncomfortable with the reality of real solutions. Good luck with your journey .
??? Perhaps you should be more careful yourself, for I've not said a single thing about compassion for school shooters. If it were me coming into that school during a shootout the shooter would not leave the building alive.
Compassion and empathy should come into play at some point. We can attribute some of the cause of these shootings to generic mental health issues, but that doesn't necessarily pinpoint the issue. At its basic, a mental health issue may stem from a biological condition or from the environment. A kid who isn't raised properly, who constantly gets rejected by his peers and vilified by society - what is the by-product of such an environment?
"Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause;
But, since I am a dog, beware my fangs."
— Shylock
That goes for gang bangers too - they too are not in a proper mental state, but this is largely an environmental problem.
Consider if we had some compassion for the environment and the limited tools these kids had to cope with. Maybe we wouldn't be so quick to dehumanize and dismiss them as "losers", as was the case with the van attacker in Toronto. Maybe we'd actually try to find the underlying causes of these issues.At least you are considering both kinds of violence and shooters in the same light.
Well mrpopo, I think you have certainly opened a can of worms with this one.
Shooting from the hip, here are my first, unvetted thoughts.
I will take the easy one first - the gang-bangers. Hasn't our compassion and empathy already identified most of the problematic reasons:
An environment of poverty, lack of positive opportunities, lack of family fabric, general lawlessness, and an environment of predators.
Hasn't our 50+ year "War on Poverty" and $22 Trillion dollars specifically tried to address those problem areas?
$22 Trillion must represent at least some compassion, and the hundreds of "tried" programs initiated and led by sincere community activists must stand for at least some degree of empathy.
And still with the gang-bangers, surely there must be a line drawn somewhere in time, where compassion and empathy would be misplaced. For the "new - forced to be in a gang kid" or the "new - in a gang because they don't have anyone else kid," I have compassion and empathy, and would support almost any efforts to offer 2nd,, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th chances.
But for the gang-leaders and veterans, the ones that have seen and perpetrated the violence, I have enough compassion to offer one chance - quit now, or get off the planet.
As for the school shooters ... my first question, regarding the popular explanations; bullying, peer rejection, dysfunctional families; didn't kids have these problems 40 years ago too?
I understand how cold and Neanderthal all that sounds, and may be, but instead of compassion and empathy, I would go for teaching a little more about the reality of what it takes to survive life, and, the concept of personal responsibility. That may not work for all the "shooters," but I bet it would work for the majority. And then we can try compassion and empathy for the truly weak ones.
ps. I think your Shylock quote was most appropriate - for both perspectives. Yours and mine.
GAAs usual, you hit on some excellent points GA. But we're not in disagreement, aside from a minor semantic.
You know that old adage, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? Turns out that's not entirely accurate because fruit flies actually prefer vinegar. The meaning behind the phrase holds true
- it's just that for fruit flies their "honey" is "vinegar." (Bear with me on this one)
Here's the rub:
"I would go for teaching a little more about the reality of what it takes to survive life, and, the concept of personal responsibility"
This right here is showing compassion. Without responsibility, without purpose, young men wither and rot, mentally and physically. My suspicion - which can be better articulated by the likes of Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, and Warren Farrell - is that the "honey" we've been feeding young men has actually been their "vinegar".
As you mention, $22 trillion dollars worth of "honey" has been spent - what do we have to show for it? On the other hand, when someone like Peterson finally tries giving young men some "vinegar" in the form of YouTube videos advocating for personal responsibility, they flock to him in droves in the aim of self-improvement. I should know, I'm one of them.
You're right that kids had these problems 40 years ago, but the environment 40 years ago had some differences that better equipped kids to overcome those challenges. That's my (mostly) educated guess, mainly because I don't see an alternative explanation. Again I defer to the authors I mentioned - you're better off looking to them as starting sources because they are far more articulate and actually have a memory that bests a goldfish's.
Not that I don't like doing research in this sort of thing - but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I have less time these days. Personal responsibility and all that
PS: I'm glad you liked the Shylock quote. I'll add that if we want to go through life we may need to show our "fangs" every now and then - or, as Peterson puts it, incorporating the Jungian shadow.It's good to see your response mrpopo. I jumped to a conclusion from your compassion and empathy thought. It seems it was a mistaken assumption. I should be more careful.
As a side note: I remember that it was one of your comments that introduced me to Peterson, so I will check-out your Camille Paglia reference. I am slightly familiar with Warren Farrell, however, and his perspectives are not ones that align with mine.
GAThat assumption does bring up a point about what kind of approach is actually compassion, at least in the sense that if we're being compassionate we want to actually help people.
One of the things I learned in a talk with Farrell and Peterson is how of rough-and-tumble play in young children helps them learn to socialize. When this isn't done early enough (before the age of 4) they're unable to know what the limits of "play" are, and this can become a pathology where the child doesn't know that they're causing harm or that innocuous things done to them aren't actually harmful. Such a child is rejected by his peers because they don't know how to play.
If we extrapolate from this that rough-and-tumble play in young children past the age of 4 is also important (perhaps more so for boys than girls), then what can we say about, for instance, 0 contact school policies? Is that truly showing compassion by preventing children from getting hurt? Or is it potentially contributing to unbalanced kids who have a hard time socializing? What are the potential future consequences of such a policy?
Of the three, I am least familiar with Warren Farrell, but I am curious to know which of his perspectives you disagree with.This time I will hold off jumping to conclusions mrpopo. My gut reaction to "compassion" - without further contextual support, is to understand it's meaning to imply we should "cut someone a break."
The context of your response tells me you mean it otherwise. So, yes, we are basically in agreement. I also agree with this further comment of yours. I would have just used the term "coddling." Like your explanation, I too see it as harmful.
Simple old-days logic would be the hairpin in an electrical outlet response. "Well, I bet he won't do that again!" A thousand, "Don't do thats," and a thousand explanations why, won't come close to the message impact of actually doing it once. Of course my wife doesn't agree with me, and I catch hell for letting our great nephews do things that might hurt them, (of course I am talking about things like climbing trees), but the point of your under and over four year-olds play interactions is the same message. We cannot completely protect our young from life, and too many times, nowadays, (in my opinion), we are doing much more harm than good when we try to do that. Hells bells, my wife has a problem letting the kids run barefoot in my grassy backyard. What is the message there?
Oops, sorry, got off on a rant there - directly related to a great-nephew issue a couple hours ago.
But, along those lines, that is just like the "harm" we do to our high school shooters and gang-bangers when we try to "coddle" them through whatever problems they are having.
Moving on ... My introduction to Farrel was awhile ago, and if I remember correctly it was his seeming preoccupation with gender roles that turned me off. You will have to judge for yourself if his message speaks to thoughts you have. He just wasn't my "cup of tea."
GAYes, I can see how I came across that way. When I spoke of compassion at some point, I meant at some point in the time span between a kid without the necessary tools to overcome challenges, and that same kid deciding to open fire on his classmates and end his life. As you alluded to with your gang leaders/veterans example, there is a point when these individuals are simply too far gone and compassion (with all that it entails) is misplaced.
I agree, "coddling" is the more apt term. The problem is the people who either knowingly or unknowingly label their "coddling" as "compassion." Earlier today I was watching an interview with Peterson and Maajid Nawaz and Peterson mentioned how certain radical elements in Canada are (in some sense) justifying their actions under the guise of compassion - in this case, compelled speech to protect trans people from being misgendered (link here if you're interested). The combination of your assumption and Peterson's comment led me to this thought better summed up by C.S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Really, I should thank you for jumping the gun - it led to some interesting thoughts I wouldn't have considered otherwise.
I was going to say I didn't remember anything Farrell said about gender roles, but that earlier example I gave may have been related to something that can be loosely said to be a gender role (although I don't like framing it that way). Rough-and-tumble play with children is mostly done by fathers. Of course mothers can engage in rough-and-tumble play but it's not as natural an inclination as it is with fathers. I think your example with your wife and your great-nephews might allude to that!Now that is the second really good quote you have provided with mrpopo. I don't know what reading leads you to find them, but thanks for the prompts. I really like that C.S. Lewis one. It speaks directly to my opinion of our, (the U.S.), head-long rush to acceptance of governmental social engineering.
GA
I like your reasoning here, Professor. I concur with your viewpoint.
Well, as long as we are riding the "agreement" wave, I also agree with you that most, (if not all), of these kids shooting-up schools do not fit the "pure evil" descriptor. I too think there are other, more directly related motivators.
I will stick my foot in the bear trap and say I think some type of social media/publicity* motivation might be a major factor.
*both , I think, are also tied to modern-times changes in our social fabric, i.e. personal fragility and self-victimization.
There, now both feet are in that trap.
GAI don't know that a single school shooter was not caught, and quite easily. If they didn't want that to happen you'd think that at least some of them (given the number of incidents over the last few years) would have done something other than walk down the hall shooting a gun.
I absolutely agree that personal fragility and self-victimization are a part of it.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Considering that everyone of these shooting has a history of lousy human behavior ignored by the education / law enforcement system . Let's treat the human element.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
What new law , what federal regulation , what congressional act or executive order can cure the American society of THIS ? Millions of more than likely spoiled , bullied , emotionally entitled , video eductated , textually socialized , morally bankrupt offspring of totally unknowing parenting ?
When everything has been tried already , special juvenile laws and courts , early education , gun bans , assault weapons bans ,age restrictions , gun free zones , student counselling , guidance counselling , mental health evaluations , educational interventions at all levels , family counselling , .....................?
Why does this keep happening ? And what serious changes will end these tragedies ? Obviously nothing?If we can just take the guns away it will all stop - we won't mention the bombs he had already constructed and spread through the school and neighborhood.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
It's basically as simple as needing a cure all for insanity , Why doesn't the left get that ? I say the left because who else is calling for more laws , restrictions and ultimately sacrifices of liberty to be burned at the altar of reality . Those who repeatedly scream at these incidences for someone else to cure the insanity before them , in fact created by them , who else demands over and over and over for all sacrifice by others .
You're assuming the goal is to prevent violent deaths. It isn't - the goal is to reduce/eliminate gun ownership.
Are you speaking for everyone, Dan? Or is this simply more opining from the right? I'm a gun owner and I don't wish to eliminate ownership of all firearms. I know many firearm owners from the left who feel the same way. It sounds good as more propaganda from the right though.
Yes, I know that's the claim. As ever more restrictions are added onto an already onerous collection - restrictions that a reasoning person understands will do nothing to prevent violence.
You make your claim, I'll draw my conclusions.Adam Lanza ,who chose to kill the Sandy Hook kids however first thought for whatever reason to kill his mother . explain how another gun law or any law for that matter would have prevented him from killing his mother before all the other victims?
A few facts for anti assault weapons people to consider;
--criminals aquiring a gun won't do background checks
--Won't care if there is even a serial number to register
--Won't care how many rounds the mag holds
--Won't be concerned about bump stock laws
--Won't check to see if it's a gun free zone
--Won't care if hot-wiring a electronic trigger is illegal when it becomes another law
--Won't care if Daddy or Mommy won't open the gun-safe so will probably use a molotov cocktail instead .
Criminal minds couldn't care less about a hundred new laws or restrictions.
But someone here explain to us all please how it matters to you and why you think it will .I'd rather have a chance with the kid carrying a smoldering Molotov cocktail than a kid carrying an assault rifle with numerous 30 round clips on his person. But hey, that's just me.....
How about this kid with a shotgun and a revolver How does that add up to assault rifles ? Ever watch Ted Nugent display the damage of a shotgun versus a rifle ? Ever actually shoot a shotgun Randy ?
Yeah, really. Ever shoot a shotgun? My father wouldn't let me shoot anything larger than a 410 ga because of the recoil. He said that little ole me was too small to handle even a 16 ga. If the person behind the shotgun is in danger of getting hurt, think about those in front of one.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Sen. Chris Murphy ,Conn. says."...... the second amendment isn't absolute ............."! Well , another political genius heard from , Better go back to school there Chris ! - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
"We Don't Have a Gun Problem , We Have a Culture of Violence Problem !"
--Ollie North , Incoming NRA President say's it best . In other words try to get your kids under control will you ? That is and always has been the problem .
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
It is just obvious that debating the same ole' same ole' isn't amounting to what it should amount to. Bottom line , these mass killings keep happening and are going to continue well into the future . We can't even reach a consensus about what is wrong with the kids.
-Did making dope illegal work ?
-Prohibition successful ?
-How about sex with children?
-Does the threat of a felony in crime work
-Embezzling laws working out ?
Can anyone even begin to get it that laws aren't stopping most crimes , ever ?Without the laws just how much more prevalent would all these crimes become, to be able to commit them without the fear of prosecution or punishment? That is why you and most others don't exceed the speed limit, because there is always the risk of getting caught and fined.
Folks: Save your breath. Nothing will ever change. If it didn't change after Sandy Hook, it won't ever change. People are more concerned about their personal rights than about anybody (even their own children) else's life.
Pretty nasty statement. Glad I don't have your outlook on life and my neighbors, friends and family.
I'm going to use that one in the future.
Related Discussions
- 539
Connecticut School Shooting Leaves at Least 27 Dead Children
by news-usa 12 years ago
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing at least 26 people, including 18 children, by blasting his way through the building as young students cowered helplessly in classrooms while their teachers and classmates were...
- 260
Another school shooting
by IzzyM 12 years ago
Dear God, what is the matter with America?Another school shooting. High death toll. Few days before Christmas. Connecticut.http://abcnews.go.com/US/27-people-dead … Mtxy2_tRGY
- 51
The Santa Fe HS Massacre By Gun May Tell a Different Story.
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
For the 22nd time just this year, somebody opened fire on an America school campus. While most of the others had an AR-15 as the gun of choice, this one was accomplished with a shotgun and revolver. In my mind, that changes the discussion somewhat based on what facts come out.In terms...
- 6
School Shooting Again
by SpanStar 12 years ago
Germany Second Only to United States in School Shootings http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 45387.htmlAnother school shooting in Charon, Ohio February 27, 2012. Students shot in cafeteria while eating breakfast. It would appear that school shootings have become an...
- 8
Why are there so many shootings by Police Officers? Would it help if they didn't
by Peeples 9 years ago
Why are there so many shootings by Police Officers? Would it help if they didn't have guns?In 2013 Iceland had it's first person killed by a police officer shooting. This is because they do not typically carry guns as POs. Their communities are pro guns for sport (hunting) and many people own them...
- 47
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot about school shooting
by Michele Travis 12 years ago
Rush said this even before the children started to have a funeral."It is terrible, incomprehensible but I'm going to tell you something as we sit here at this very moment, you know it and I know it there are liberals trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives or...